Obama loss would guide rest of term

Friday

Sep 6, 2013 at 12:01 AMSep 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - President Barack Obama and his advisers view the coming decision on military action against Syria as a potential turning point that could effectively define his foreign policy for his final three years in office.

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - President Barack Obama and his advisers view the coming decision on military action against Syria as a potential turning point that could effectively define his foreign policy for his final three years in office.

As he lobbied world leaders at a summit here in person and members of Congress back in Washington by telephone yesterday, Obama argued that failure to act would be an abdication of the indispensable U.S. role since the end of the Cold War, leaving no one to step in when international bodies fail to.

In private, Obama and his team see the votes as a guidepost for the rest of his presidency well beyond the immediate question of launching missiles at Syrian military targets. If Congress does not support action in response to a chemical attack that killed more than 1,400 people in Syria, Obama advisers said, the president will not be able to count on support for virtually any use of force.

Although Obama has said he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. It would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the public's will. It also would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him.

As a result, Obama would be even more reluctant to order action in the one case that has most preoccupied military planners: the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Any operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities would require a far more extensive commitment of force than the missile strike envisioned against Syria.

"I think this vote determines the future of his foreign policy regardless of whether it's a 'yes' vote or a 'no' vote," said Rosa Brooks, a former top Defense Department official under Obama. "If he ekes out a 'yes' vote, he's beholden to the Republicans."

But, she added, "if he gets a 'no' vote and stands down on Syria, he's permanently weakened and will indeed probably be more inward looking."

Already a sometimes-reluctant warrior, Obama pulled out all U.S. troops from Iraq, ordered a withdrawal from Afghanistan and lately has talked about scaling back his aggressive use of drones in Pakistan and eventually ending the war against terrorism. Some critics have argued that in subcontracting the Syria decision to Congress, Obama was looking for an excuse not to act and someone else to blame.

White House officials say the president wants a united front. But to opponents of a Syria strike, a retreat from further use of force after a congressional rejection would reverse what they see as excessive militarism since Sept. 11, 2001.

It might be that the dire talk from the White House reflects a strategy to muscle Congress into line: Vote against this, the message being, and you vote against protecting Israel from Iran. And it might be that even if White House officials believe it today, Obama would still act to stop developments in the Iranian nuclear program or to address some other threatening circumstance if the moment arrived.

"Obviously defeat would be a blow to presidential leadership but I think not fatal to a decision to attack Iran because the stakes are different," said Gary Samore, a former national-security aide to Obama. "The danger is that Iran might misread congressional opposition to a Syria attack as a green light to move toward building nukes, which would force Obama's hand."

Obama presented his case to leaders gathered here from the Group of 20 nations. While France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia support such a strike, most of the others were more cautious, and the meeting's host, President Vladimir V. Putin, was openly hostile.

"One thing for Congress to consider," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, "is the message that this debate sends ... around the world - that the U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way."